Philosophy of History

From the beginning of historiography, a few major dilemmas have raged back and forth amongst the intellectual circles. Questions such as: is history an art—or is history a science; Is objectivity really possible, or are we forever trapped in the prison of our own privileged subjectivity, and if it is impossible to be reached, should it even be strived for? In my own personal philosophy, I see history as being an art largely influenced by science and paradoxically able to be studied objectively—yet only through our own subjectivity.

Science uses empirical data as a main source. In doing laboratory research scientists use clear-cut methodologies based on elements with unchangingly rigorous laws. Human beings on the other hand, are different. We have emotion and actions such as deceit, honor, or revenge. In other words we have motives. When a molecule of ozone comes into contact with an oxygen atom they combine to form two ordinary oxygen molecules (O + O3 —> O2 + O2) and thus, since the ozone molecule is gone, destroy the ozone layer. This is law; the oxygen atom has no motive or secondary agenda behind its actions. Science is based on law and formula to describe natural happenings. However, emotion and motive can change and therefore by definition cannot be based on laws or formulas. When humans, through combustion and the burning of coal and methane produce too many dirty oxygen molecules, they are destroying the ozone layer. Here we find motives—transportation, technology, civilization—behind the destruction. If one were to take a history of the ozone layer as a science, one would be only able to see its destruction scientifically on a chemical, atomic level, whereas if one were to look at it artistically, in the sense of using the knowledge of human reason, emotion, and motive to paint the picture instead of empirical data to dictate mathematical graphs, one would be able to see it as the effect of a civilization, industry, and technology.

Now, on the other hand, even though there is not a mathematical formula able to be placed on a civilization in history, with perhaps population, level of technology, and industry growth rate being different variables, that will tell us the precise percentage of destruction of the ozone layer, there is a helpful use for the empirical data that comes with such mathematics. Knowing the level of growth of a civilization and its industry is only possible on a macro scale, and on such a macro scale, civilizations have tended to follow similar paths. Hegel showed this in his “formula” of thesis—antithesis—synthesis. This is a formula, yet not a scientific one. It could be called an artistic formula. Therefore, while proving mathematical formulas and such empirical data as inaccurate if not mundanely synchronic, such data is useful to a diachronic history of a civilization. The artistic of history is its definition, while scientific is one of its useful tools: history is an art which is perfected with the use of scientific processes.

In the light of seeing history as a scientifically perfected art, we must decide if we are even able, or what could be far worse, allowed, to study history. We must decide if our looking at history will give us a skewed perspective through our privileged, subjective knowledge of the outcome, or if, by laying aside the cloak of subjectivity and donning that of objectivity, it is even possible—and if its not, we must decide if we should even look at it to begin with. Complete objectivity is, by definition of knowledge, impossible as we are looking back—as we already know that the outcome is us, here and now. As a result, the point of history is to see how and why we are the outcome; and what would have happened to us, as the end, if a different path had been taken along the way. For example, when the Roman Empire was fighting Carthage, we normally and subjectively look at it from the Roman’s perspective since we know that they in fact won the war and wrote the history about it. However, in our quest for Truth in history, we know that a war has two possible outcomes and winners, and we must therefore look at both outcomes to find motive in the initial war itself; we are in fact left with no other option but to be objective. To see the war from a Carthage point of view, and therefore discovering motive and tact, would mean to look at a part of history that did not in fact lead up to us and forces us to use objectivity. By in turn looking at the Roman’s in the same light, we can, through our knowledge of being subjective, can choose to be objective as we did with Carthage. History is using our subjectivity to choose to be objective; we are privileged in knowing the outcome of all history, and yet, with this knowledge, can choose to set this aside. With knowledge of the outcome we can choose to look at it in that light or to not.

Everything has a history: philosophical thought, science, geology, religion, politics, and even history, all have teleological lines which lead up to where they are presently. Not to say that such teleology was predestined, but simply: all topics of life have a specific history. Therefore, studying history is greater than studying any other subject. The level of thought is higher that of any other. I am proud to be such a student.

Adam T. Wamack--A Young Influence